First homebrew antenna and a question
 

I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each
leg of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

"jawod" wrote in message
...
I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each leg
of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06. It
appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O
Looks as though the antenna is too long except for 10M.

Dale W4OP

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Dale Parfitt wrote:
"jawod" wrote in message
...

I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each leg
of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06. It
appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O
Looks as though the antenna is too long except for 10M.


Dale W4OP


Dale,
Thanks for the response.
My god, you're right. I think I better get some sleep!

Thanks,

John
AB8O

PS, question still holds...I think I can leave it as is using an ATU, No?

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:57:56 -0400, jawod wrote:

I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each
leg of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.


Have a look at Fig 4 at http://www.vk1od.net/G5RV/index.htm . Though
the graph doesn't show VSWR on the RG213, the loss is lowest where the
VSWR is lowest. You should be using an ATU, and it is the line loss
that is more important than the VSWR of itself.

Your antenna sytem appears a little long rather than short, did you
measure the length of the radiator conductors, did you measure the 300
ohm line, did you allow for the velocity factor of the 300 ohm line?

Owen


Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Most of those lowest SWR points actually indicate the elements are too
LONG. Remember, the wavelength is longer as frequency is lower.

jawod wrote:
I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each
leg of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Actually, it appears to be too long on 75m, 40m, and 20m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's
the deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and
29.06. It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too
short.


Actually, it appears to be too long on 75m, 40m, and 20m.

Thanks to all for replies.

Yep, too LONG.
Egg on MY face. In my defense, it was late and I was working all day
getting the G5RV up in the trees.

To top off the day, I connected my K2 to the ATU and can't get them to
work together...short somewhere...will have to wait until after work.

John
AB8O

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
Yep, too LONG.
Egg on MY face. In my defense, it was late and I was working all day
getting the G5RV up in the trees.

The dipole should be 102 feet for bare wire. Maybe 99
feet for insulated wire. That's 1.5WL on 20m. The
series section should be 1/2WL on 20m. With a VF = 0.9,
that's a little over 31 feet.

According to EZNEC, here are the optimum lengths for
the series section:

3.8 MHz 30.5', 7.2 MHz 34.5', 10.125 MHz 20.7',
14.2 MHz 33', 18.14 MHz 12.5' or 37',
21.3 MHz 29.5', 24.95 MHz 30.5', 28.4 MHz 23.4'

It's easy to see why 31' doesn't work well on
30m, 17m, and 10m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

"jawod" wrote in message
...
I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each leg
of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06. It
appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)

You might want to try 450 Ohm line instead of the 300. On Eznec, it works
out better.

Tam/WB2TT

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

Yep, too LONG.
Egg on MY face. In my defense, it was late and I was working all day
getting the G5RV up in the trees.


The dipole should be 102 feet for bare wire. Maybe 99
feet for insulated wire. That's 1.5WL on 20m. The
series section should be 1/2WL on 20m. With a VF = 0.9,
that's a little over 31 feet.

According to EZNEC, here are the optimum lengths for
the series section:

3.8 MHz 30.5', 7.2 MHz 34.5', 10.125 MHz 20.7',
14.2 MHz 33', 18.14 MHz 12.5' or 37',
21.3 MHz 29.5', 24.95 MHz 30.5', 28.4 MHz 23.4'

It's easy to see why 31' doesn't work well on
30m, 17m, and 10m.
Yep, that's about right. I cut it at 51 x2 = 102 feet but I used
insulated wire...so if I want to bring down the antenna to correct it, I
should remove about 18 inches per side, right?

Pretend, for a minute, that I am NOT an antenna "purist" (not too hard a
task, you say?)

....Do I want to go out and correct it or just let the ATU compensate?

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
...Do I want to go out and correct it or just let the ATU compensate?

I once made a 2000 mile QSO on a light bulb.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:04:42 -0400, jawod wrote:



...Do I want to go out and correct it or just let the ATU compensate?


Can the ATU "compensate" for feedline loss?

Owen
--
My initial question related to a dipole 3 feet too long, no change in
feedline was/is contemplated...consider that a constant.

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:04:42 -0400, jawod wrote:


...Do I want to go out and correct it or just let the ATU compensate?

Can the ATU "compensate" for feedline loss?

Owen
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:09:20 -0400, jawod wrote:

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:04:42 -0400, jawod wrote:



...Do I want to go out and correct it or just let the ATU compensate?


Can the ATU "compensate" for feedline loss?

Owen
--
My initial question related to a dipole 3 feet too long, no change in
feedline was/is contemplated...consider that a constant.

The length of feedline(s) may be constant, but the losses in the
feedline(s) depend on VSWR, and nothing you can do with an ATU changes
the loss in feedline(s) beyond the ATU.

I note that you have figured that the dipole is 3' too long, that is
about 3% too long, but the antenna resonance appears about 6% low at
14MHz. Are those two pieces of information consistent?

Owen
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

My initial question related to a dipole 3 feet too long, no change in
feedline was/is contemplated...consider that a constant.


The length of feedline(s) may be constant, but the losses in the
feedline(s) depend on VSWR, and nothing you can do with an ATU changes
the loss in feedline(s) beyond the ATU.

I note that you have figured that the dipole is 3' too long, that is
about 3% too long, but the antenna resonance appears about 6% low at
14MHz. Are those two pieces of information consistent?
Should they be consistent?

Owen
--
Owen,

I get about 4% at 14 MHz, 3.5% at 7 MHz, next to zero on 80M...these are
all relative to the low CW portion of the band where I "live".

I understand your point. VSWR at the XMTR as lowered by the ATU makes
the transmitter happy but the antenna may not be happy or as efficient.

Being a pragmatist and the wet season about to arrive, I just want a
handle on whether, all things considered, it is worthwile to shorten the
antenna or leave it alone.

I've got to start using EZNEC.
:)

John
AB8O

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:36:33 -0400, jawod wrote:



My initial question related to a dipole 3 feet too long, no change in
feedline was/is contemplated...consider that a constant.


The length of feedline(s) may be constant, but the losses in the
feedline(s) depend on VSWR, and nothing you can do with an ATU changes
the loss in feedline(s) beyond the ATU.

I note that you have figured that the dipole is 3' too long, that is
about 3% too long, but the antenna resonance appears about 6% low at
14MHz. Are those two pieces of information consistent?
Should they be consistent?

Yes, the length of open wire section of the feedline influences the
frequencies at which the RG8 VSWR is low, near as much as the dipole
itself.

The band where the "tuning" of the radiator and openwire line section
(together) is most critical is 80m, the optimal bandwidth (from a feed
loss point of view) is narrowest, and has the steepest sides.

However, the place where the VSWR looking into your RG8 is most
predictable is at 20m (typically 14.2MHz) where the common form of the
G5RV should have a three half waves resonant dipole and half wave
electrical open wire section. The Z at the dipole centre will be
around 90+j0, and if the loss on the open wire line is low, the Z into
it will be 90+j0, for a VSWR on the RG8 of just under 2, a little
lower at the tx end.

If you were to find that the VSWR minimises higher or lower than 14.2,
it is a sign that the combination of the dipole length and open wire
section are too long or too short.

If you objective was resonance of the dipole + open wire section at
14.2 (and I now understand that is not your objective), you would be
6% low with your stated observations.

If you are happy with the location of the VSWR dip on 80m, leave it
all alone because the VSWR dip results in the least losses in your
RG8, and if that is of significant length, then the additional losses
are significant. Most other bands are less sensitive than 80m, but
note that a G5RV is not efficient on "all" bands, and so should not
qualify as an all band antenna.

Owen
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:36:33 -0400, jawod wrote:


My initial question related to a dipole 3 feet too long, no change in
feedline was/is contemplated...consider that a constant.


The length of feedline(s) may be constant, but the losses in the
feedline(s) depend on VSWR, and nothing you can do with an ATU changes
the loss in feedline(s) beyond the ATU.

I note that you have figured that the dipole is 3' too long, that is
about 3% too long, but the antenna resonance appears about 6% low at
14MHz. Are those two pieces of information consistent?

Should they be consistent?


Yes, the length of open wire section of the feedline influences the
frequencies at which the RG8 VSWR is low, near as much as the dipole
itself.

The band where the "tuning" of the radiator and openwire line section
(together) is most critical is 80m, the optimal bandwidth (from a feed
loss point of view) is narrowest, and has the steepest sides.

However, the place where the VSWR looking into your RG8 is most
predictable is at 20m (typically 14.2MHz) where the common form of the
G5RV should have a three half waves resonant dipole and half wave
electrical open wire section. The Z at the dipole centre will be
around 90+j0, and if the loss on the open wire line is low, the Z into
it will be 90+j0, for a VSWR on the RG8 of just under 2, a little
lower at the tx end.

If you were to find that the VSWR minimises higher or lower than 14.2,
it is a sign that the combination of the dipole length and open wire
section are too long or too short.

If you objective was resonance of the dipole + open wire section at
14.2 (and I now understand that is not your objective), you would be
6% low with your stated observations.

If you are happy with the location of the VSWR dip on 80m, leave it
all alone because the VSWR dip results in the least losses in your
RG8, and if that is of significant length, then the additional losses
are significant. Most other bands are less sensitive than 80m, but
note that a G5RV is not efficient on "all" bands, and so should not
qualify as an all band antenna.

Owen
--
Thanks Owen, for your good advice

John
AB8O

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each
leg of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)
Update:

Well, yes, the antenna was too long (not too short). I decided to lower
the antenna and shorten each leg by 18 inches. Now it's back up about
45 feet, sloping to about 25 feet. (No change from before.)

Now, SWR dips are at 3.610, 6.710 and 13.580 MHz.

These are not what was expected. Oddly, on 40M SWR dip went further
away from the band edge (as if dipole was lengthened).
I did not change the 300 ohm window line (at 31 feet).

From what I've read here and elsewhere, I should note 80 and 20M
performance as primary considerations.

I'm a little nervous about shortening it further.

John
AB8O

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
Now, SWR dips are at 3.610, 6.710 and 13.580 MHz.

These are not what was expected. Oddly, on 40M SWR dip went further
away from the band edge (as if dipole was lengthened).
I did not change the 300 ohm window line (at 31 feet).

I'll bet your minimum SWR points are not purely resistive.
Any chance of borrowing an MFJ-259B and reporting the
purely resistive points?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
I did not change the 300 ohm window line (at 31 feet).

If that's the 300 ohm ladder line with heavy insulation,
it has a VF around 0.8 and Owen's feedline calculator at:

http://www.vk1od.net/tl/tllc.php

says that 1/2WL at 14.2 MHz is ~27.7 feet. If you shorten
your 300 ohm section by about 3 feet, you will have close
to a standard G5RV with the minimum SWR points where they
should be.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0400, jawod wrote:

jawod wrote:
I spent the day lowering the folded dipole that I BOUGHT. I was unable
until recently to find how bad the SWR was on most bands. The only
reasonable SWR was on 17 meters.

So, I replaced it with a homemade G5RV, measured appropiately for each
leg of the dipole (14AWG) and for the 300 ohm window line to R/G8U.

I now find reasonable SWR on most bands (WARC, not so much). Here's the
deal: min SWR comes in right at 3.5 MHz, 6.75, 13.43, 18.07 and 29.06.
It appears that I made the classic newbie mistake...antenna too short.

Now, since I am using an ATU, I think this should be close enough for
acceptable efficiency (at least for 80, 40, 20, 17 and 10 meters).

What do you think?

John
AB8O

PS, When I get the time, I'll try EZNEC but for now, I just want to work
what I hear for a change (!)
Update:

Well, yes, the antenna was too long (not too short). I decided to lower
the antenna and shorten each leg by 18 inches. Now it's back up about
45 feet, sloping to about 25 feet. (No change from before.)

Now, SWR dips are at 3.610, 6.710 and 13.580 MHz.

These are not what was expected. Oddly, on 40M SWR dip went further
away from the band edge (as if dipole was lengthened).
I did not change the 300 ohm window line (at 31 feet).

From what I've read here and elsewhere, I should note 80 and 20M
performance as primary considerations.

I'm a little nervous about shortening it further.


I have explained to you several times that the length of the radiator
and the open wire section act together to influence the impedance
presented at the coax to open wire junction.

I asked if you had measured both elements and if you had considered
the velocity factor (for your actual line) in those measurements, but
you did not reply, and you have not reported the length of the open
wire line. The surest way is to measure the velocity factor, calculate
the correct length and accurately cut to that length.

The common G5RV has dipole's second series resonance at 14.2 and the
open wire line an electrical half wave at 14.2, which will present a
resistive load of somewhere 80 to 90 ohms at the coax to openwire
junction, and you will observe a VSWR minimum on the coax at that
frequency (even at the tx end of the coax line). (Of course if you do
something silly like use a 50 ohm VSWR meter in a 75 ohms coax line,
you aren't making valid VSWR observations.)

Remember the rule: measure twice, cut once.

It can't be all that hard, can it.

Owen

PS: I noted your throw away comment that time is of the essence, the
wet season is coming. Have you noted the recent comments on
performance of wet ladder line. Depending on the construction, your
300 ohm line might be subject to similar degradation, and your
"optimised" configuration might not be optimised when the feedline is
wet.
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

I have explained to you several times that the length of the radiator
and the open wire section act together to influence the impedance
presented at the coax to open wire junction.

I asked if you had measured both elements and if you had considered
the velocity factor (for your actual line) in those measurements, but
you did not reply,





It can't be all that hard, can it.



PS: I noted your throw away comment that time is of the essence,

Owen,

I appreciate your advice.

Just glad I'm not your neighbor.
I'm certainly not your errant student.

There are some elmers out there and then there are responses as above.

If you feel it is beneath you to respond, then by all means don't waste
your time responding. This is all too familiar.

For the record, I did not have deviating from G5RV specs as part of my
"design" and, as a first attempt, I wanted to avoid higher order issues
such as the arcane bickering about water on a transmission line.

Frankly, from a newbie perspective, so much controversy over such issues
calls into question any science that is behind so many assertions and
counter-assertions. If so much depends upon water on the line, then how
important can velocity factor be? This is said only partially in jest.

In my mind MIS-application of science is far worse than its non-application.

I think a good engineer would agree with me. Would you?

John
AB8O
not an engineer

PS
Cecil, your advice is more on the mark for me and I appreciate it. I'll
work on velocity factor and EZNEC for the next project...if time allows.
I'm proud to say that this is my hobby but it's not my career.

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
For the record, I did not have deviating from G5RV specs as part of my
"design" ...

If you used 300 ohm ladder-line, like The Wireman's
#561 or #562, you did indeed deviate from G5RV specs
by making the ladder-line length equal to 31 feet.
For that particular transmission line, 1/2WL on 20m
is around 28 feet.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

For the record, I did not have deviating from G5RV specs as part of my
"design" ...


If you used 300 ohm ladder-line, like The Wireman's
#561 or #562, you did indeed deviate from G5RV specs
by making the ladder-line length equal to 31 feet.
For that particular transmission line, 1/2WL on 20m
is around 28 feet.
Yes, and thanks
I actually emailed the supplier as there are no markings at all
indicating type on the ladder-line cable, but based upon description, I
have the 300 ohm line. Per your advice, I'll try shortening the
transmission line. Yours (and even Owen's) advice are always appreciated.

I simply won't be belittled or badgered, well, for ANY reason.

I really do listen to you guys, but practicality and time constraints
rule the day.

73,
John
AB8O

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:16:44 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

jawod wrote:
For the record, I did not have deviating from G5RV specs as part of my
"design" ...

If you used 300 ohm ladder-line, like The Wireman's
#561 or #562, you did indeed deviate from G5RV specs
by making the ladder-line length equal to 31 feet.
For that particular transmission line, 1/2WL on 20m
is around 28 feet.

Wireman's data for #561 and #562 shows vf=0.91, and for #563, vf=0.66.

I have found wide variation in line construction and hence vf of
nominally 300 ohm line, and suggest that it is worth measuring.

This information is not new, G5RV wrote "If it is desired to use 300
ohm ribbon type feeder for this section, it is strongly recommended
that the type with "windows" (ladder line) be used because of its much
lower loss than that with solid insulation throughout its length, and
its relative freedom from the "detuning" effect caused by rain or
snow. If this type of feeder is used for the matching section,
allowance must be made for its velocity factor in calculating the
mechanical length required to resonate as a half-wave section
electrically at 14.150 MHz. Since the velocity factor of standard 300
ohm ribbon feeder is 0.82, the mechanical length should be 8.5m (28
ft). However, if 300 ohm ribbon with "windows" is used, its velocity
factor will be almost that of open-wire feeder, say 0.90, so its
mechanical length should be 9.3m (30.6 ft)."

Talking about the physical length of the so-called matching section
without knowing the velocity factor of the actual line is incomplete,
it is the electrical length that matters.

Owen
--

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Wireman's data for #561 and #562 shows vf=0.91, and for #563, vf=0.66.

I have found wide variation in line construction and hence vf of
nominally 300 ohm line, and suggest that it is worth measuring.

I use #562 on my 20m rotatable dipole. Its VF measures
very close to 0.8. I needed the accuracy because I
vary the length of the feedline in order to resonate
the system on 20m-6m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

jawod wrote:
I simply won't be belittled or badgered, well, for ANY reason.

In Transactional Analysis, it's known as the
parent to child communications path. :-)
(We should all use the adult to adult path.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

First homebrew antenna and a question
 

Talking about the physical length of the so-called matching section
without knowing the velocity factor of the actual line is incomplete,
it is the electrical length that matters.

Owen
--
Fair enough, Owen. Now, was THAT so hard?